Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Truly Random Numbers On A Quantum Computer??
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 01:32:52 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <vscrc4$2t8mk$5@dont-email.me>
References: <vs73jc$3jepm$1@dont-email.me> <vs7a9c$3pg3k$1@dont-email.me>
	<87tt7bo1wc.fsf@gmail.com> <vsaj17$38nej$3@dont-email.me>
	<87h63ak3e3.fsf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 03:32:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e859c0f06e08adb9708095145f85f77d";
	logging-data="3056340"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+XdPlSufiMSSBQtwQ9WnA0"
User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+mAULMfaEYLfY6nL5+lGO2fqeHU=
Bytes: 1987

On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:19:00 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:

> The definition of ``probability'' (in the sense of how to interpret
> it) is sort of an open problem.

It’s a term which can be defined in more than one way. One obvious one is 
as the relative frequency of different possible outcomes. I think there 
are others.

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:25:23 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:
>>
>>> I get the feeling here that, by the same token, you could never have a
>>> provably secure cryptosystem because someone knows the private key?
>>
>> None of our cryptosystems are provably secure.
> 
> One example of provably secure system is the one-time pad.

But it’s not. Where do you get the pad from? Proof of security of the 
system relies on proof of the randomness of the pad. Which takes us back 
to square one.